Oh yeah... that was real extreme. Maybe they are just Christian mediocres. Or Christian averages. Or Christian kindas. Or Christian morons.

Never mind.

I'm really confused.

Extreme to me. Fucking madman.

yeah antimatter, we rallllly wanna hear yer take.......reminds of another fine example of perspective, from the same sifter..
"You sound like Nazi Shit who watches Fox and you make little sense you ignorant fuck.
Stay inside. Do your usual lame ass boring shit. Don't travel. Watch more CNN. Die mentally in your cocoon."-antimatter, a real, pal-maker

Man who does not know himself yet, doing what any zealous clod would do, regardless of his bullshit spiritual convictions....sad thing


down vote for title...

"My invisible friend could beat up your invisible friend!"

fucking hyprocritical christian idiots. they want to push god, god, god...but of course ONLY their version of god.

You too gruel...how bout get a room with antimatter, and you can compare sacks, and trade whacks....bet yer combined ages, amount to a pro-basketball player's shoe size....


And this, fair sifters, is the level to which, perhaps, the sift will digress, should we let skippy here, and his pal, numnuts, bring their drive-by youtube sound-bites here....You guys, are impressing no-one, but yourselves, with yer grade-school banter....Suggestion?? Piss off, gracefully....

Choggie i'm just curious k, but whats your problem with the title?

"extremists", is one of those words, with regard to this particular religion, that implies, that divides, and inadequately describes, the motivation for the post, or that speaks any clear message, other than to draw out the skinny-minded here, who love to gather and masturbate in public....because monkeys love symbols and labels...both sides of the monkey room.

ex:
-Gruel??, antimatter, Antimatter? gruel.

choggie - perhaps learn to spell my name and I might respond. Look at my post history, you'll see a fair bit of ranting, but quite a lot of research and evidence provided to back up any claims I might have against religious (mostly christian) zealots.

their comments were rude and uncalled for. they are hypocrites.

yes, skinny minded indeed

who goes to a senate hearing to harass someone when they share a different set of whacko religious beiefs? the answer from this video would seem to be...Christians.

It was all a ploy by the Indian Association of SOUTHERN Nevada...

Jealous!

"extremists" seems to apply here in my opinion. Most Christians are not "extremists"...most Christians would not have behaved so rudely....at least I would hope not. Is this not extreme behavior for a Christian or am I mistaken and this is really the norm?

No chaplain, of any religion, has any business giving prayer on the Senate floor.

if there were worse things they could have done then they're behaviour it isn't really extreme.

i think its like calling the guy who told dick cheney to go fuck himself an extremist. just because i dont agree with them doesn't make them extremist

i guess "Christians who feel very strongly about their faith disrupt Hindu Senate invocation" would have been too long

The take on this by the "American Family Association", the right-wing fundamentalist organization spearheading the protest, is that this is an "abomination" because Hindus believe in multiple gods, and thus it is expressly against "one nation under God" from the friggin' Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm going to go throw up now.

America is a nation that celebrates freedom of religion, I think that sounds like a marvelous idea. I don't believe the members of the "American Family Association" were properly educated.

Theo47 - can you give me a link to that info ???
Ha, Christian theology is polythiestic (father, son, holy spirit - easier to get those pagans to convert :-)
and the christians call Hindus an abominiation for believing in multiple gods ?

"Pastor Jerry Gibson spoke at Doug White's New Day Covenant Church in Boulder.
He said that every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/?last_story=/tech/htww/2007/07/12/hindu_prayer_2/

Christians once again showing off their compassionate and tolerant nature. On the other hand, *no* religion should be promoted/respected by any level of government. To the government, churches should be just another business (and taxed as such), because that's all they are.

Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue

_____________

Ha, the "one true god, jesus christ"... How many times have you heard that "god sent his only son, blah, blah, blah..." as i said before. christianity is polytheistic. god, son, holy ghost, trinity crap.

I believe the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was added during the Red Scare some time in the mid 50s. So not only does it conflict with freedom of religion, but was also set up under pretenses of frightening the nation. Kind of changes the meaning around, doesn't it?

But I wouldn't call them extreme, either. Killing an abortion doctor - now that's extreme.

yeah, extremists might not be the right word...(it was copied and pasted from youtube) I'll change it to "Christian Activists"

the senate floor is traditionally opened each morning with a prayer. obviously its usually a christian one. i've always found it odd, too, but its supposed to get those politicos thinking about others besides themselves, I'd assume.

@ qruel; a quick news story rundown here
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19729245/

'The male protester told an AP reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.' - now thats good copy!

'"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace," said (Sen.) Reid, a Mormon...'

Interestingly, the current Senate Chaplain is a Seventh-day Adventist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate , one of the 'infallible scripture' groups that everybody so loves to politely knod along with and ignore.

qruel:

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257

WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto "One Nation Under God."

Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic - they believe in one God; the Trinity you spoke of are parts of the whole.

I wonder if there've been invocations by rabbis or Muslim clerics, which theoretically would not upset Mr. Barton (as they also have monotheistic deities), but I'm sure would make his blood boil just the same.

None of any of it makes a goddamned bit of sense to me.
And I fail to see why "extremists" does not apply to these people.
If any of them looked even the slightest bit Middle-Eastern, they never would've been able to get into the Senate to pull their little stunt.

Jesus says... "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive."

They tried to obstruct what he had to say and look what it got them: "The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the chamber."

The thing that those 'activists' should really be thinking about is this verse: Matthew 6:1 "Be careful not to display your righteousness merely to be seen by people. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven."

Geez, this is just like having Coke or Pepsi kick off the session. Religion and Soda Companies - huge multinational entities that care about converting you to their brand more than anything else. Neither has any place in government.

Well put, Marr.

I am with Choggie on this one. Downvote. I dislike it when someone religious, especially Christian, does something intolerant, and suddenly there is a line of people just waiting to make the sweeping generalization that every other single follower of similar belief is intolerant, fundamentalist, etc.

Hindu has its extremists as well, but whatever. If one wants church and state separated, fine. That, however, doesn't just mean you should just remove one and not the other.

Poo, I still can't downvote yet. This one is going on my list though.

of course these christian activists dont talk for every christian. Fact remains the first time EVER a hindu was invited into the senate, they got yelled at... and this small handful of wackos made religion look silly.

this is pretty terrible... Hindus accept other religions freely and openly, sigh... why cant some people just stfu and let others live how they want too.

and suddenly there is a line of people just waiting to make the sweeping generalization that every other single follower of similar belief is intolerant, fundamentalist, etc.

Again, a misunderstanding of the case against religion. I think it was Hitchens who put it this way: "God is not a moderate"

Moderate religion is, simply put, like humans and animals themselves, a direct product of its environment. People become moderates through contact with the outside world, Which is why God seems to prefer that we dont make contact with the outside world, again, because He is no moderate himself, apparently.

People are moderates, because in a civilized, globalized world, they dont really have the option of shutting themselves inside a circle-arguing ironage myth. You just cant go around, leading a normal life, and still REALLY believe some of the most absurd propositions that the bible makes.

If EVERYONE were dedicated christians in this world, the statements of these delusional nutbags would make perfect sense, they would be no real reason to "not take the bible so literally", there would, simply put, be no arguments left for moderatism, if we all accepted the bible as the word of God. This is why, when you go to places were this literally is true, like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Iran, 16th century Europe, or some certain parts of the bible belt, God is no moderate, the society has drowned in the common delusion, spinning itself deeper and deeper into the religious mud, because they have no outside pressure, nothing to moderate it.

If 50 or 60 percent of the population, on the other hand, dont even believe in God(s), You cant go around screaming this shit and still be considered a sane person.

Hindu has its extremists as well, but whatever.

Yeah, that Gandhi - where the hell did he get off NOT using violence? It's un-American!

Congrats on the dumbest defense of religion I've ever heard.

BTW, I predict that the moderates will now see me saying that they are just extremists dressed in moderate clothes, but thats not what I'm saying : Moderate religon is real, moderates are real, and they make up the vast majority of religious people in todays world.

As I said, every living creature is a "product of its environment", without outside pressure, the environment doing the selection, we'd still literally be primeval soup, but we are humans, and we are very real indeed.

Do he ever learn than it make more harm than good to the christian religion with this kind of behavior ?

Fanatic= Puppet of the devil

in the words of Mr. Peter Griffin:

"woh........ wooooooh....... woh....... woh........... woh.... woh woh woh woh......... woh.......

lois, did you forget to give me my batman glass??"

The day they allow a satanist to perform opening prayers for the senate is the day I'll believe that we have actually achieved true freedom of religion...

How about this this proposition

"- the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called "progressive," "multiculturalist," "universalist," "liberal," "politically correct," etc, is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity."

Hindu has its extremists as well, but whatever.

Yeah, that Gandhi - where the hell did he get off NOT using violence? It's un-American!

Congrats on the dumbest defense of religion I've ever heard.
DING! DING! DING!
You just won a free lesson in Hindu caste systems.

Just claim your price <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit">Here.

Oh and that was not me defending the actions of the protesters. While I may agree with them on some points, I do think it is best to respect the beliefs of others. I simply thought it ironic that people are more interested in posting the intolerance of some, mostly Christians and Muslims, yet totally ignore some of the horrendus acts of intolerance elsewhere, like <ahref="http://www.savetibet.org/news/positionpapers/religiouspersecution.php">this, <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_China">this, and <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJM3BoBNrdk">this.

I see a trend. People see what they want to see. Some just want another reason to bash religion.

extremism: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm;

activism: a practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

Clearly, these are vigorous actions that go far beyond the norm.

Fedquip, you can title things however you like, and should be able to do so without being attacked for using what is clearly appropriate language.

And btw, I know I'm new here, but downvoting because a title uses a word you don't like seems silly (extreme, perhaps?).Shouldn't we be voting up or down for the content?

Not shown: muslim homicide bombers.

and more -
"separation of church and state is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic... "
"...If you have a rule that says the state cannot be taken over by a church, a constant danger in any democracy for obvious reasons, the obvious mutation to circumvent this defense is for the church to find some plausible way of denying that it's a church. Dropping theology is a no-brainer. Game over, you lose, and it serves you right for vaccinating against a nonfunctional surface protein."

"I dislike it when someone religious, especially Christian, does something intolerant, and suddenly there is a line of people just waiting to make the sweeping generalization that every other single follower of similar belief is intolerant, fundamentalist, etc."

This is why I don't understand why people objected to the word "extremist". Using that word says right off the bat that this is not your average Christian here doing what your average Christian would do. But apparently there are those on here that don't agree with that and don't believe what these people did was extreme enough to use that word. I believe one user justified this by saying "there were worse things they could have done". Really? So as long as someone can do something more extreme that disqualifies your actions as extreme?

Lots of people probably associate "extremist" with "terrorist". I'm sure few christians want to be thought of as terrorists, which is probably why they raised a fuss about the title. "Extremist" does seem appropriate in this case, however.

It seems to me that some people here are forgetting that this nation was founded by Christian leaders. Are you all forgetting that "God" is in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence?

Sketch, you say that Churches should be taxed as a business because they are one. While that maybe true of the Catholic Church, the last time I checked, the "Christian Church" did not exist with a command structure. The Christian churches take what money they need from tithes and donations to pay the upkeep of the facilities, and the rest goes to things like missions overseas and and local charities.

Yes, the people in this video are morons. What they did accomplished nothing. But no, they do not represent the average Christian.

And "Pastor" Jerry Gibson is an assmunch and killing people is NOT part of Christian doctrine.

Personally, I think a prayer vigil outside the senate would have been a much better solution.

Great, religious debates.

Upvoted for invoking this hot hot hot topic.

It really scares me how American senate is biased towards one religion. Original founding fathers tried so hard to make it fair for everyone. But somehow the later generation screwed it up. It's all our fault really...

In many states of India there's a powerful far-right Hindu faction and some hardcore violent extremists, the thug-wing of which are refered to as the Shiv Sena.

The thug-wings . I like that!

I think a prayer vigil outside the senate would have been a much better solution.

That would indicate that there was a "problem." I didn't see one.

praying should either be a private thing between you and god, or you should admit that you are just showing off and causing trouble.

"freedom of religion" means "freedom to not have any religion promoted by government whatsoever"

The reason the senate comes out biased toward one religion is because the majority of people in this country are Christians of one denomination or another. There isn't a current systematic method of keeping other religions out of office, it's just that the majority of voters are Christian and like to elect people who are similar to them. The system is fair to everyone; anyone can get elected if they spend enough money.
To all of the people questioning why there are no videos of other religion's extremists; go right ahead and post some. I think we would all be interested in hearing what they have to say and making fun of them the same way we make fun of these few Christian activists.

quantummushroom, dumbest man alive

_{"I think a prayer vigil outside the senate would have been a much better solution.}

"That would indicate that there was a "problem." I didn't see one."

They saw a problem. I was simply offering a solution if I was in there shoes. Personally, I really don't think Christianity and government systems of any sort were meant to "get along" anyhow. Given how governments can easily become corrupt, it would be a bad decision to have the two working hand in hand. Government + belief system = theocracy.
I tend to think that is a bad idea in general.
praying should either be a private thing between you and god, or you should admit that you are just showing off and causing trouble.

"freedom of religion" means "freedom to not have any religion promoted by government whatsoever"
No, freedom of religion means that our government shall neither support or interfer with any religion. It goes both ways, but generally it isn't followed. Personally, I think some politicans are allowing it for votes. I can see through that though. Once they actually do something useful, like say...help end poverty, go after corruption, do their job, etc. I might vote for them. Until then, I am voting for Nader.

Theo: He's close. I think he's second to choggie.

Oh, and SilentPoet: congrats in advance on helping Giuliani or Thompson get elected. We all appreciate it.

Ass.

"Theo: He's close. I think he's second to choggie."
I disagree. Choggie may ramble a bit, but he strikes me as someone intelligent.

"Oh, and SilentPoet: congrats in advance on helping Giuliani or Thompson get elected. We all appreciate it.

Ass."
Ok. Just who, pray tell, should I vote for? I see corruption and lies from both of the major parties.
I have no intention of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

It's no accident that "atheist" and "annoying" have the same number of syllables.

In the same way less-guided religious folks assume they've found the One Way, so the atheist automatically assumes some kind of Nietsczheian brilliance for...what exactly?

Voting for Nader and atheism are the same: no one cares and it doesn't change a GOD-damned thing.

"Ok. Just who, pray tell, should I vote for? I see corruption and lies from both of the major parties.
I have no intention of choosing between the lesser of two evils."

Then you won't choose between them. And in failing to do so, you'll end up with the worse (by far) of the two evils. Yippee for you! The problem is, so will the rest of us.

There is corruption in both major parties. But it doesn't follow from that that each member of the party is corrupt, or that there aren't politicians running for president who would be positive forces for cleaning up the District. What evidence do you have, say, that Obama is corrupt or a liar?

Now, I might not have jumped all over you so quickly if a vote for Nader actually stood any chance of changing things, either in the short term or the long term. It doesn't. He won't win, and he'll make it a good sight more likely that a Republican will take office. They are precisely the party that, once in power, will work tirelessly against achieving the goals you value most (I assume that if you'd ever vote for Nader, you are likely to the left of current Democrats).

What I'm getting at is that a vote for Nader (or any candidate like him) is IRRATIONAL. All it does is help to make the world worse--by the voter's own lights--than it is right now.

Oh, and choggie can't even construct a sentence. If that doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence, then....well.....I was just hoping we could set the bar a little higher.

"It's no accident that "atheist" and "annoying" have the same number of syllables."

Yes, and "quantumushroom" and "smelly asshole" have the same number of syllables. What should we infer from that?

What should we infer from that?

That you can count syllables, just not while typing.

---

Silentpoet: work more on the SILENT part.


Don't worry, there's no God so no One will remember this.

"Voting for Nader and atheism are the same: no one cares and it doesn't change a GOD-damned thing."
Then that would imply that one vote does not count. Which leads to no votes counting since every single person who counts has only one vote. Your statement is incorrect, sir.

_{"Ok. Just who, pray tell, should I vote for? I see corruption and lies from both of the major parties.
I have no intention of choosing between the lesser of two evils."/}

"Then you won't choose between them. And in failing to do so, you'll end up with the worse (by far) of the two evils. Yippee for you! The problem is, so will the rest of us.
That doesn't make sense. Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates. How do I end up with someone worse than the two canidates by voting for someone who I believe would make a better canidate?

"There is corruption in both major parties. But it doesn't follow from that that each member of the party is corrupt, or that there aren't politicians running for president who would be positive forces for cleaning up the District. What evidence do you have, say, that Obama is corrupt or a liar?"
From the fact that most politicans promise positive change, yet most serve their own intrests. I see this trend from both parties, so I look for canidates from other parties or an independent canidate.

"Now, I might not have jumped all over you so quickly if a vote for Nader actually stood any chance of changing things, either in the short term or the long term. It doesn't. He won't win, and he'll make it a good sight more likely that a Republican will take office. They are precisely the party that, once in power, will work tirelessly against achieving the goals you value most (I assume that if you'd ever vote for Nader, you are likely to the left of current Democrats)."
I will vote for whom I believe to be the best canidate. I only wish others would do likewise instead of settling for crooks.

"What I'm getting at is that a vote for Nader (or any candidate like him) is IRRATIONAL. All it does is help to make the world worse--by the voter's own lights--than it is right now."
How is choosing the canidate whom you believe would serve best irrational? That seems to simply go against the very meaning of democracy to me.

"Oh, and choggie can't even construct a sentence. If that doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence, then....well.....I was just hoping we could set the bar a little higher."
I admit that I usually have to read his comments several times before I figure out what he is saying. Like I said, he rambles a bit, but there may be some method in that madness.

SilentPoet says: "That doesn't make sense. Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates. How do I end up with someone worse than the two canidates by voting for someone who I believe would make a better canidate?......How is choosing the canidate whom you believe would serve best irrational? That seems to simply go against the very meaning of democracy to me."

It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?

Think of it this way: Say you have 3 choices, A, B, & C. You like A better than B, and B better than C. Thus, you like A better than C (by transitivity). Now, imagine that an evil wizard comes up to you and says, "You can choose A, but if you do, I will make it immediately disappear, and you will be stuck with C. If you choose B, you will get B. If you choose C, you will get C. Which do you want?"

It is obvious which choice you should make. You should choose B. You could choose your favorite choice (A), but you know if you do you will not get it anyway, and in fact will be stuck with the thing you like the least (C). You don't want to choose C right off, because then you'll get it, and you'd rather have B. If you choose B, though, you'll get B (and avoid C). B isn't perfect, but at least that way you end up with your second ranked outcome instead of your last ranked outcome.

Now, replace A with Nader, B with the Democrats, and C with the GOP, and you see why voting for Nader is irrational. It is the equivalent of choosing A in the thought experiment described above (the evil wizard is, of course, the American 2 party system).

Now, the argument above is based on 6 assumptions:

1) That Nader can't win.
2) That voting for him knowing he will lose will not make for any significant structural/institutional changes, even in the long term (and may even result in a regression away from your admirable political goals if the Republicans are helped to win by your so voting).
3) That the Democrats--while shitty--are not NEARLY so shitty as the GOP, and will not get alot of people killed by staying the course in Iraq, bombing Iran, etc.
4) That the Democrats are not MORE corrupt than the Republicans.
5) That your politics are closer to Nader's than, say, Fred Thompson's.
6) That the next presidential election will be close enough that if a good number of people follow your advice, we could see a repeat of the 2000 Nader/Gore/Bush debacle.

I think the first 4 are all indisputable. The fifth one is reasonable given that you are advocating a vote for Nader instead of a different "3rd party" candidate. Number 6 is a guess, but I think it's a decent one. Anyway, vote for who you like. I just hope you won't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing anyone but Nader a favor. You won't, if my argument is correct, even be doing yourself a favor.

"I admit that I usually have to read his comments several times before I figure out what he is saying. Like I said, he rambles a bit, but there may be some method in that madness."

This is proof that you are more intelligent than me. I cannot figure out what choggie is talking about. Ever.

Hey QM,

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at since I don't speak fuckstick, but you should be aware that syllable count and word count are 2 different things.

I bet your daddy feels really bad about dropping you on your head when you were a baby.

"It seems to me that some people here are forgetting that this nation was founded by Christian leaders."

Not even close.

"Are you all forgetting that "God" is in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence?"

The WORD "God" is in the first sentence, but only a religious nutbar would read it as anything but deist. It speaks to the equality of all mankind, and it's certainly not an advocation or declaration of some new, Christocentric nation.

"People see what they want to see."

Look who's talking.

"Some just want another reason to bash religion."

Look who's talking 2. And some are just looking for any opportunity to proselytize.

While there are some rather generic mentions of a creator in the Declaration of Independence such as "Natures God" and "their Creator" it is plain that these references were purposely vague as to not refer to any one specific religions God or Creator. It is also important to note that while the Declaration is a very important historic document it is not a legal document for this nation. It has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom.

On the other hand we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which is a legal and binding document for this country. It should not be overlooked that our founding fathers do not mention God, Creator, Jesus, or Christianity at all in this document that is the cornerstone and blueprint for this country's government.

"It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?"
Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job. Surely, you know there are better people to choose as president than those of the two major parties. Forget who everyone else is voting for. Who do you really think would do the best job? I have seen too much of both of the major parties to think that they could offer up the best canidate. I really just wished people would stop looking over their shoulder to see if their vote matters. It already does. The only thing that has stopped us from getting a decent president is this countries acceptance of the lie that we can only have two choices. Trust me, there are much greener fields than those of whom we are told to vote for. Think for yourself.

As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that.

_{"People see what they want to see."}

"Look who's talking."
Tell you what, you can say that and when I actually start being closed-minded, it will actually mean something. Until then, its is simply all sound a fury, signifying nothing. I am open to opinions other than my own. If I only saw what I wanted to see, I probably wouldn't have watched this video, no? Take a look at some of my comment history. I do not shy away from opinions different from my own. Nor do I ignore them.

_{"Some just want another reason to bash religion."}

"Look who's talking 2. And some are just looking for any opportunity to proselytize.
The same can be said of any video here that promotes atheism. I am not doing anything all together different than what has already been done here. The only difference is the subject. Atheist can proselytize as well.


As for comment concerning religion bashing, I said that because I highly doubted that someone posted this to help raise awareness of intolerance. There are much better examples out in the world. Perhaps I assumed too much of the intention of this video and for that I apologize. I have simply seen too many videos that do nothing but bash Christianity because of the actions of a few. But from the way some of the comments were heading, this was definitely about to become a religion bashing fest, no?

"Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job."

NO. It requires that you vote for the person you think will do the best job AND CAN GET THE JOB!!!

"As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that."

It most certainly does not. It relies on the assumption that there will only be two candidates that have a chance to win. These are very different assumptions (I thought you assented to this upthread when you said "Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates"). Besides, my argument was EXPLICITLY structured to offer THREE choices. This is not a subtle point, and it's a rather cheap dodge of you just to dismiss the whole post like that.

That Nader will lose is a cold, hard fact. Do the math. He couldn't even win if all the Greens and a full 1/3 of the Democrats turned out just to vote for him. If you think otherwise, you are in for a serious disappointment. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that somehow there are millions upon millions of voters just waiting for a new, exciting 3rd party candidate who is ideologically independent. There aren't. Most people either agree with the Democrats or Republicans. That's how they got to be the 2 major parties in the first place (how they kept that status is a different story).

"Surely, you know there are better people to choose as president than those of the two major parties. Forget who everyone else is voting for. Who do you really think would do the best job?"

Putting aside the fact that it's a gigantic strategic error to "forget who everyone else is voting for," I will admit that there are much better people to choose as president than the frontrunners. But in my opinion the best candidates are still members of the 2 major parties (e.g. Kucinch, in whose campaign I held a position the last time he ran). Nonetheless, I have no intention of sacrificing the good for the perfect. There are some people who are worse than others, and I'll not use a protest vote so I can knowingly help Republicans commit war crimes.

"Trust me, there are much greener fields than those of whom we are told to vote for. Think for yourself."

Now you've pissed me off. I just took the time--FOR YOUR BENEFIT--to offer you a relatively sophisticated argument (for an internet comment thread) against your position. It was based on Choice Theory, and invoked the standard definition of rationality, as well as the principle of transitivity. Yet somehow I'm "not thinking for myself." Don't assume that just because I reach the same conclusion as the status quo that I'm some sort of drone. Sometimes, conventional wisdom is just that: wisdom. In those cases, independent thinkers often reach the same conclusion as most other folks.

Go ahead and beat your chest and cry "Democracy!" as you vote for Nader. But you won't get any congrats for doing so--at least not from anyone who understands the concept of rationality.

I vote for best hair.

Yes! Fletch has it! Also, I should really lighten the fuck up. I'm even starting to annoy myself.

_{"Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job."}

"NO. It requires that you vote for the person you think will do the best job AND CAN GET THE JOB!!!
I think Nader can be president if people would stop accepting the excuse that you have been giving me. The only reason why we still have a two party systems is the acceptance that we cannot change it. That is it.

_{"As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that."}

"It most certainly does not. It relies on the assumption that there will only be two candidates that have a chance to win. These are very different assumptions (I thought you assented to this upthread when you said "Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates"). Besides, my argument was EXPLICITLY structured to offer THREE choices. This is not a subtle point, and it's a rather cheap dodge of you just to dismiss the whole post like that."
Allow me to reiterate. Your arguement uses the assumptions that only two choices offer an "effective" result. Plus it also assumes that everyone except me takes your advice. Also, I think it is rather cheap to simply say that I should change my vote to democrat simply because democrat isn't republican and democrats stand a better chance. I tend to think that apples that fall from the tree are usually easier to pick, put often have worms in them. The same can be said of politicans. I wasn't dodging the question either. If I wanted to vote for democrats, I would vote for them.

"Nonetheless, I have no intention of sacrificing the good for the perfect. There are some people who are worse than others, and I'll not use a protest vote so I can knowingly help Republicans commit war crimes."
Is this what all of this is about? Republicans? Geez, you want me to throw my vote to someone I do not think would be a good canidate simply to give you one more vote over the Republicans? This is what I am talking about. This whole two party system makes it where there is no middle ground, no room for what you think, just black and white. I am not for that and never will be.

And as for my comment about thinking for yourself, I said that because I thought some campaign worker had convinced you that either you are with democrats or against them. Little did I know that it was infact you who as the campaign worker. Small world after all, eh? Well, anyhow, do me a favor and let me do what I thought you should. That is think for myself. By the way, how did we get into political parties? If I knew it was going to end up like this, I don't think I would have even mentioned the word vote. The word is to politicans like money is to a salesman. They will tell you anything to get it and get a bit ill if they don't receive it.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to piss you off. I should have realized the rhetoric I was hearing was indeed coming from a political worker and not hand-me-down rhetoric from someone who hung around a campaign worker too long. For now, lets agree to disagree when it comes to my vote.

I'm surprised choggie wasn't just banned back 3.5 years ago.

*religion *fail *cult *controversy *douchebaggery

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Cult, Fail, Religion) - requested by gwiz665.

8 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*length=00:01:38

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:38 - length declared by critical_d.